What Do You Think About The Dutch Judicial system?

What Do You Think About The Dutch Judicial system?
The Dutch Judicial System - it is O.K. to hurt and Insult Muslims
For more: https://sites.google.com/site/crimesexposed/the-dutch-judicial-system---it-is-o-k-to-hurt-and-insult-muslims
Further to Do You Call It Islamic Terrorism? Over the last thirty... show more What Do You Think About The Dutch Judicial system?

Further to Do You Call It Islamic Terrorism? Over the last thirty years 99.96% European terrorism emanating from non Muslim sources. Yet, far too many people think that Muslim terrorists are hiding under the bed! This is how Israel controls your media and this is happening because 96 % of Worlds media is controlled by just zionist companies.

The Dutch Judicial System is clearly saying that it is O.K. to hurt and Insult Muslims.

Dutch prosecutors have asked judges to acquit anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders on all charges of inciting hate and discrimination against Muslims, in a case seen as testing the limits of free speech versus religious freedom.

The move Friday by prosecutors signalled their belief the case against Wilders was weak, although judges could still disagree and convict him. The defence begins its case next week and a verdict is scheduled for next month.

The case is being closely watched in many European countries, where immigration has created a backlash of anti-Muslim sentiment and boosted nationalist parties that are outspokenly negative toward Islam and Muslims.

Muslims complained to Dutch authorities that Wilders crossed the line when, among many slurs, he compared Islam to Naziism and the Koran to Hitler's manifesto, Mein Kampf.

Prosecutors told the court that Wilders' statements may be "hurtful" or "insulting" to Muslims but there was insufficient proof to convict him of trying to polarise Dutch society into antagonistic groups. He has never called for violence.

Wilders, who had frowned throughout Friday's hearing, broke into a wide smile as the prosecutors concluded by running through the charges against him and asking for acquittal on each.

"I don't insult, I don't incite hate, I don't discriminate," he said outside the courtroom afterward. "The only thing I do, and will keep on doing, is speaking the truth."

In her summation, prosecutor Birgit van Roessel said Wilders' statements were made as part of the public debate "about the immigration and integration of non-western foreigners, especially Muslims."
"Standpoints can vary considerably and emotions can run high but ... it is a debate that it must be possible to have," she said.

In one example cited by prosecutors, Wilders wrote in a 2007 opinion piece: "I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate," and urged that the Koran be banned.
The prosecutors said that statement, like others, was within the legal bounds of public debate.
Many of Wilders' statements seemed to denounce Islam as an ideology or its the growing influence in the Netherlands, rather than being intended as an abuse of Muslims as a people or group, Van Roessel said.

Prosecutors had initially declined to press charges against Wilders at all but were ordered to do so by an appeals court that ruled there was significant evidence against him.

Muslims, mostly from Morocco and Turkey, comprise about six per cent of the Netherlands' 16.5 million population.

If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to a year in jail, though a fine is more likely.

A right-wing government that depends on Wilders' Freedom Party to reach a one-vote majority in parliament took office on Thursday, making him one of the nation's most powerful politicians.

Although not a member of the ruling coalition, many of his election planks have been incorporated in the plans of the minority cabinet. They include measures to turn away more asylum seekers, halve the number of new immigrants from nonwestern countries, ban the public wearing of face-concealing Muslim garb and force immigrants to pay for their own mandatory citizenship classes.

Follow

4 answers 4

Report Abuse

Are you sure you want to delete this answer?

Sorry, something has gone wrong.

Trending Now

Answers

Best Answer: The context you provide with this question is biased and very ill-informed. Basically, the reasons why the Dutch prosecution requests acquittal in this particular case are the stipulations of Dutch criminal law which state that discrimination can only be proven against people, not religions (any religion for that matter) or religious writings, the Holy Qu'ran in this case (but which might just as well have been a christian bible). Moreover, statements made by politician Geert Wilders are done within the confines of the general public debate and as such, he is within his rights to make a distinction between groups of people (which is not the same as discriminating against).
One might argue that a political debate about for instance the diverging needs of young people and pensioners is, in essence, not that much different.

I do have my doubts about the accusers in this case because they could have known that their case was a feeble one from the very start, yet they filed a complaint anyway to get some publicity. In the end though, I think every party involved here will lose.

The notion of 'islamic terrorism' is IMHO a load of bull. My islamic, buddhist, hindu, catholic, whatever neighbours are interested in the same things as myself: leading a decent, happy and respectful life in a shared community. Not so very long ago, I was in more danger of getting blown up by IRA or CCC terrorists than the current Al Qaeda breed. No doubt, within a few decades there will be another faction trying to bomb the community at large into submission, in yet another pathetic attempt to sell their warped ideas about world order.

What is important now, is that people don't go over the top because of a single publication on highly biased website boasting topics like 'further evidence in support of the gas chamber', or 'beyond zio-nazi', and generically renouncing the Dutch judicial system as flawed because it does not support their point of view. Flawed as it may be, I believe the Dutch judicial system still deserves some respect as it refuses to construe the law in favour of popular rhetoric or threats from either side of the issue.

Does not anyone insult other people, Like Christians, woman and gay people are insulted in radical Muslim countries? The judge clearly stated that it was not in any way personal or threatening and that Wilders, we believe now he has an Israeli passport and contacts with the government there, has his right to speak out as a member of parliament. That is part of our democracy. There are many Muslims in Holland who desperately and hatefully want to hit up gay people. This is precisely how far their involvement in Dutch society goes. If Dutch people were not worried they would not have voted him. Now other people who insulted minorities have been convicted in the past so I am Dutch but have no worries about the legal system at this point. Many countries have rules like sending people back to their country of origin when they commit crimes. Even the socialist party wants refugees to stay in their own region. Dutch people are often right wing followers. Nothing new.